META Meta Platforms

Signal: Right — the bullish read on the settlement paid off; the stock rose after entry. Timing: Partially late — about +0.70% of the move had already occurred by decision time (entry 574.8 vs. prior close 571.10), though a comparable further leg (+0.57%) remained. Exit: Efficient — the +3.28 P&L (+0.57%) captured essentially all of the +0.60% best unrealized gain, with minimal drawdown (-0.14%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the only mild drag was entering after part of the news-driven pop, which capped the size of the available move.

Signal: weak at best — the short spent time down as much as -2.10% (price rallied ~2% against the bearish call) versus a peak favorable move of only +0.45%, so the predicted direction was mostly wrong while the position was open. Timing: the data doesn't show a stale entry — price was only +0.31% since prior close at decision time — though the fill at 576.17 (about +0.9% over prior close) is notably above the quoted context, which the data here doesn't explain. Exit: the +1.22 (+0.21%) result captured roughly half the modest +0.45% available and was driven by a mechanical netting against another position, not the thesis; the dominant factor is a bad signal that got bailed out by a lucky forced exit.

Signal: wrong. The short bet on further downside, but META rose ~1.2% from entry to exit (571.42 → 578.34), and the position was barely ever profitable (max +0.25% unrealized vs. -2.95% at worst). Timing: the stock was already down -1.12% by entry, so whatever negative reaction the news drove may have been largely priced in — though the data can't confirm the settlement news caused that earlier drop. Exit: the -1.21% realized loss sits well inside the -2.95% worst drawdown, so the fixed next-close exit avoided the worst; there was essentially nothing on the upside to capture. Dominant factor: bad signal — the predicted direction simply didn't materialize after entry.

Signal: Effectively wrong-to-weak — while the trade closed green, the position went as much as 2.72% against the short versus only 0.67% in its favor, so the bearish regulatory thesis mostly didn't play out during the holding period. Timing: Little evidence of chasing — the stock was only -0.35% off the prior close at decision time, so the move hadn't already happened; entry timing isn't the issue here. Exit: Captured +0.13% of a +0.67% best available, so roughly 80% of the achievable gain was left behind, but the dominant factor is the weak signal — the +0.75 P&L is closer to luck than thesis confirmation given the 4:1 adverse-to-favorable excursion ratio. (The data doesn't show whether the drawdown preceded or followed the peak gain, so exit sequencing can't be fully judged.)

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the position lost ground from entry to exit, so the predicted overnight drift didn't materialize in the direction bet.

Timing: The move had largely already happened — entry at 578.19 was ~1.4% above the prior close of 570.05, meaning the trade bought the settlement-news pop rather than getting ahead of it, and the position then reverted.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave back everything available — the trade saw +1.66% unrealized at its best but exited near the worst (-1.19% realized vs. -1.69% trough). The dominant factor is timing: the entry chased a news move that was already priced in, and the fixed-close exit compounded it by holding through the reversal instead of capturing the intraday gain that briefly existed.

Signal/timing: The bearish thesis never paid off after entry — the stock ran against the short, offering a maximum of only +0.25% favorable movement — largely because the move had already happened: META was down 5.31% in the 30 minutes before entry, so the short chased an exhausted repricing that then reversed. Exit: The -2.14% realized loss sits between the +0.25% best and -3.90% worst unrealized, so the exit was neither a blowup nor a rescue; there was essentially nothing available to capture. Dominant factor: timing — entering after a -5.31% flush left no room for the signal to work, and whether the underlying bearish read was correct on a longer horizon can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — META drifted up only +0.32% from entry, and the adverse excursion (-1.04%) was twice the favorable one (+0.51%), so the bullish thesis had weak follow-through.

Timing: The stock was already +1.04% at decision time and the fill (567.8) sat +1.57% above the prior close, so most of the repricing appears to have occurred before entry; the data can't confirm when the Hatch news broke, but the pre-entry run-up is consistent with a late entry.

Exit: Solid — +0.32% captured out of a +0.51% max available, roughly two-thirds of the (small) move on offer. The dominant factor is timing: entering after a ~1.5% pre-fill move left little residual edge, not a bad exit.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — META rose ~1.8% against the short, and the position never got more than +0.43% in its favor. The regulatory-lawsuit thesis didn't translate into downside during the holding period.

Timing: Entry was not chasing a move already made — price was roughly flat versus prior close (+0.19%) at decision time — so this wasn't a stale-signal problem.

Exit: The exit at -1.83% gave back nearly all of what was available on the downside (worst unrealized -2.17%), so the exit was near the bottom of the trade's range; but with the direction wrong throughout, no exit choice would have salvaged more than the fleeting +0.43%. The data here doesn't show whether the exit was rule-driven or discretionary.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bearish call never materialized — META rose after entry, and the position was underwater the entire time (best unrealized was still a -0.40% loss), so the predicted direction simply didn't happen in the holding window.

Timing: Not the issue here — price was only +0.70% on the day at decision time with a flat last 30 minutes, so there's no evidence a big bearish move had already been missed; the problem is the move went the other way.

Exit: Middling — the -1.11% realized loss sits between the best (-0.40%) and worst (-1.82%) unrealized marks, so the exit neither salvaged the smallest available loss nor took the maximum damage; with no winning moment available, exit quality is secondary to the bad signal.

Signal: Right — the short saw up to +2.30% unrealized gain while open, so the predicted downward move did materialize. Timing: Entry wasn't chasing a completed move; the stock was only -0.52% off the prior close (and the fill at 547.39 was actually above prev close), so the decline largely happened after entry. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the mechanical hold-to-next-close exit gave back the entire ~+2.30% favorable excursion (worth roughly +$12) and closed at -$2.25, near the worst end of the range; the trade captured none of what was available. Blunt diagnosis: exit, not signal or timing, killed this trade.